JeffreyW wrote: One thing people reading should also consider is the failure of both the fissioning (nebular hypothesis) of predicting the future evolution of older stars such as Uranus/Neptune. Nothing in literature even begins to mention any predictions at all of what will happen to these two stars. They just get ignored!
Their evolution is predicated upon basic thermodynamics:
1. Neptune radiates 2.61 the energy it receives from the Sun
2. Uranus radiates 1.06 ± .08 times the energy it receives from the Sun
The protoplanetary disk/nebular hypothesis/fissioning model cannot explain this.
Stellar metamorphosis can. Uranus is further along in its evolution and is much cooler than Neptune. They came from somewhere else in the galaxy all together. If they formed from material ejected from the Sun then why is the hotter one further out by many millions of miles?
Not only that, but why are their axis of rotation completely off in reference to the ecliptic plane? And doubly why are their magnetic fields completely off to their axis of rotation?
These questions get explained away by establishment science. They just say, look, big rocks hit them... case closed.
"Ignored Stories: Global Warming on Neptune not Caused By Humans", mind you, this was back in 2007, so there is definitely more data to show this correlation between solar output and temperature fluctuations.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Observations that need better explanations than what standard theory or gtsm can providehttp://youtu.be/L2d7joOgVLg They both have glaring faults, grounded in misunderstanding...
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Here is Tom Beardin talking about how stars and other electrical circuits work. See if you can understand how this relates. http://youtu.be/hJY8XqFnAyg
What, exactly, did he explain? He said that a violent photon flux creates asymmetrical energy in point charges that can do work indefinitely, since it is replenished by the vacuum. Oooookay... so what does that mean? It sounded reasonable enough, but he never actually got around to making assertions that were tied to any observations. So he actually didn't explain anything.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Generally, it is a way to access aether energy. That being Ubiquitous, the source of electrical energy, as mediated by charges.
There are experiments that tap into that energy in a violent way. No, not completely understood..
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: These questions get explained away by establishment science. They just say, look, big rocks hit them... case closed.
RE: Uranus', et al, anomalous axial tilt (poles perpendicular to Sun's axis): Had it been hit by a big rock, as they postulate, then the amount of force required to disrupt the planet's axis would have actually created a runaway secondary axial rotation that would still be present today. But we don't see that. Therefore Uranus wasn't hit by a big rock.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Miles Mathis thinks he can verify "tilt". Maybe we need to explore there. Lloyd could probably tell you where Mathis explains his "tilt" model...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
According to GTSM this is what the Earth looked like right before life started forming:
Its Neptune. Its not thousands of light years away, its right inside of our solar system. Here's another more evolved star that will become Earth-like as well:
Its even closer than Neptune and even more evolved. It probably already has micro-organisms swimming around in its thick lower atmosphere.
The truth is right there. Right in front of us. It doesn't take 8 years of college to figure this out.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
See the blue bands in the middle? As Jupiter continues differentiation it will shrink and start turning more bluish grey, then a deep blue like Neptune, then greenish-blue like Uranus.
A vast array of electrochemical processes are underway during a star's evolution.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I have no idea what this shows. Will let those with better imaginations explain it.
Earth and Mars colliding? Would explain our Pacific Ocean and the sheared off top of Mars...
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
This is an excellent article that reviews the overlap of definitions, thus the essential obsolescence of definitions in which brown dwarfs are arbitrarily classified as "non-planets".
The NASA Exoplanet Archive classifies DENIS-P J082303.1-491201 b, as being an "exoplanet", yet the definition of brown dwarf is an object above 13 Jupiter masses. In this case DENIS is 28.5 Jupiter masses. So it is an "exoplanet" and a brown dwarf. This is very problematic.
It was already predicted via stellar metamorphosis that the definitions of "brown dwarf" and "exoplanet" would overlap. It was predicted that the definitions were arbitrary based on definitions rooted in false understanding of what "fusion" is and processes invented that were never correct to begin with. Basically their definitions were invented before they actually understood what happens to stars as they evolve. Stars cool and die to become "planets/exo-planets". Thus classification can be used to label their stage of evolution, NOT what they are permanently or even based on "fusion" theory of the 20th century. Fusion theory is simply not needed to classify stars, they can be classified by their physical characteristics.
Stated simply, a brown dwarf is middle aged planet/star (planet and star are synonymous terms). It is an intermediate aged star that has radiated the majority of its energy and mass away and is now mostly only visible in the infrared spectrum. Its mass is also in the middle ranges of stars, as brown dwarfs are much heavier than Earth like black dwarfs and dead stars like Mars/Mercury, and much less massive than very young stars like Sirius or Bellatrix.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Concerning the Subdwarf B stars, and in particular Kepler-70:
They are NOT late stage stars. They are clearly very new, very hot stars according to natural philosophy. They are the smoking gun of stellar expansion after birth. This little guy will balloon out even more to dissipate the heat.
No red giant phase was ever needed. This is a young, hot star. At 27,000 degrees K you better believe it is new!!
Stars start out in the cool of interstellar space and suck up surrounding heat as they are born and then they cool as they die and dissipate the heat. This is natural philosophy. They don't heat up as they die. This would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
They don't understand WHAT a dead star even looks like! They confuse dead stars for their own misinterpretation of what a "planet" is. We HAVE dead stars in our solar system! Mercury, Venus, Mars!!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Stars start out in the cool of interstellar space and suck up surrounding heat as they are born and then they cool as they die and dissipate the heat.
Suck up surrounding heat.? And by what mechanism do they do that? Heat does not convect very well in a near vacuum.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Stars start out in the cool of interstellar space and suck up surrounding heat as they are born and then they cool as they die and dissipate the heat.
Suck up surrounding heat.? And by what mechanism do they do that? Heat does not convect very well in a near vacuum.
I'm not too sure, but we can see it happening in stellar birth. With heat we have three types, convection, conduction and radiation. To suck up surrounding heat in an interstellar cloud the object that forms has to have heat flow into it. Cold doesn't flow, it is heat that flows. We can tell which direction heat is flowing by looking at basic thermodynamic systems.
Think of a peltier cooling device. It is a thermoelectric plate that has a different metal on each side. The electric current flows though one end, the heat gets transferred by the moving electrons, leaving one side of the heater really hot, and the other really cold. These peltier cooling devices are encapsulated inside thick foam in small refridgerators (I know I took one apart).
You can buy one on ebay to experiment with. They are like 3 dollars. Type in thermoelectric cooler, they are white squares with two leads.
In other words, a birthing star could resemble a thermoelectric cooler. Electrical current though a z-pinch heats some metals in the star and depending on the semiconducting properties of the material and their ionization properties will determine the ability of the star to maintain its structure. The electrons then transfer the heat to those metals on the interior and the outside of the star gets REALLY COLD.
So a birthing star makes the surrounding plasma really cold because it is sucking the heat out of it. It is like a heat exchanger, it takes the heat already present in the interstellar cloud and condenses it. I'm trying to tie this into Marklund Convection and tie Alfven's work as well, but it is very difficult getting the metals and compositions of the materials correct. There is just so much to it, but that is where my mind is right now.
We can see a birthing star, this is what I think they look like:
I guess the main point in all of this is understanding that stellar birth involves WAY more than just gravity. Saying gravity alone just magically squeezes interstellar dust is absurd, there are clearly other things going on.
http://youtu.be/hJY8XqFnAyg
